The Jones Act was intended to support the shipping industry and US defense. Has it outlived its usefulness? The debate continues. What Is the Purpose of the Jones Act? January 2, in Maritime Law. Free Case Evaluation. This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Now years later, the Jones Act lies in the midst of American trade, mostly unnoticed by Americans affected by it. Regardless, here are some key takeaways from this legislation:. Supports American shipbuilding and the Merchant Marine.
Limits domestic ocean trade in the U. Holds high American standards of compensation and work conditions. Upholds American protectionism. Limits travel advancement for cruise and passenger ships in the United States. The new trade deal between the United States, Mexico, and Canada promises digital advancement, improved pay and labor conditions, and more.
With the spread of the coronavirus, Amazon sellers are running out of Chinese goods to sell. June 17, Our shipping could be done more cheaply by others, and so we had none. When the war came this lack of shipping cost us hundreds of millions of dollars in higher freight rates or business losses and hundreds of millions of waste in the hasty building of ships to meet the emergency that threatened the overthrow of civilization, and today the papers are filled with stories of waste, corruption and inefficiency that was the inevitable result of the conditions and the situation that confronted us.
Toward that end, Senator Jones, serving as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, introduced a bill to encourage greater commercial use of U. Today, those provisions require that such ships be at least 75 percent U.
Although Jones presented the legislation as a national security imperative, various remarks made by the senator at the time betray protectionist, even nationalist, motives:. Before the war we had to depend on foreign ships for our business. We had to go to our competitors to get our goods to market.
Do you help your competitors fight you? Foreign lines gave the advantage to themselves. When you get an advantage do you give it to your competitor, I ask you? That is what we must continue to expect if we continue along these same ideas of the old policy. I want ships to fly the American flag on the Pacific. There are interests in this country that do not want it. Our Canadian friends are looking after their interests.
There is nobody nowadays to look after American interests except we Americans ourselves. It is said this bill will drive foreign shipping from our ports. I want to do it. Meanwhile, Jones accused opponents of the legislation of being more concerned about advancing the interests of foreigners:. Wherever possible alien interests are hiring the best American legal talent, buying the highest American writing ability, controlling the most powerful American papers, journals and magazines and cajoling or coercing American officials to serve their end.
Our competitors will deceive us, scare us, bluff us or destroy us if they can. One such impact was soon felt in the territory of Alaska, where two Canadian shipping companies were driven from the market. Regardless of whether the senator was motivated more by protecting a U. The Jones Act restricts nonqualifying vessels from operating in inland waterways and from transporting cargo between two U.
In fact, only Gambia, Dominica, Guatemala, and Belize do not. The United States is among 11 countries that fully exclude foreign vessels without exception. In the European Union, where cabotage among the member states is permitted, the corresponding figure is 40 percent.
Of 56 countries surveyed by the U. Certainly, if U. The U. Of course, the primary objective of the law was to ensure a vibrant shipping industry as a pillar of U. If vibrancy and fleet size were synonymous, Americans might sleep well knowing that the U. However, we might choose to sleep with one eye open after learning that barges operating primarily on the Mississippi River alone account for 55 percent of that number.
In fact, nearly 9 of every 10 commercial vessels produced in U. Meanwhile, facing exorbitant replacement costs, ship owners are compelled to squeeze as much life as possible out of their existing vessels. That means the Jones Act fleet is not only shrinking, but rapidly aging. The typical economically useful life of a ship is 20 years. Excluding tankers, the ships in the Jones Act fleet currently average 30 years old, fully 11 years older than the average age of a ship in the world merchant fleet of other developed countries.
These increasingly decrepit vessels are not only inefficient, but dangerous. A report by a British maritime technology university found that standards and design have improved the safety of ships over the years, but older ships lack these features or are not well maintained over long periods of time. Likewise, the U. Japan, for instance, currently has more than 1, shipyards, and it is estimated that China has more than 2, Table 1 presents the top 10 countries for the total number of ships built in gross tons during — At under 1 million gross tons, U.
Not only has U. Of the seven major U. Just as the Jones Act has contributed to the decline of U. Darren W. McDew, the head of the U.
Since its passage, the shipbuilding industry and the ships themselves have undergone vast transformations. Today the vast majority of shipping tonnage is built in Asia, complex global supply chains are prevalent, and global transportation has been revolutionized by the advent of the shipping container.
Even the ships themselves have been transformed. Rather than swim against this tide, other countries have adapted. Although the shipyards of Europe no longer churn out large cargo ships as they once did, competition has instead forced them to find unique areas within the industry in which to specialize. As a study produced for the European Commission notes:. Absent competitive forces, the U.
Instead, it produces numerous types of vessels for which it possesses no particular advantages compared to foreign sources, and at a much higher cost. Rather than specializing in the production of one, two, or several types of ships and purchasing other vessels from foreigner builders more adept at their production — as U.
This mediocrity is further confirmed by the absence of foreign demand for U. Exports from the sector, including repair services, accounted for a mere 4.
Seaports have enabled front-line workers to continue bringing essential goods to our communities, as well as lifesaving ventilators, testing supplies and personal protective equipment to doctors and nurses treating patients. This critical movement of goods has been secured by the Jones Act. To imagine life without this law, consider the risks we would face if foreign-owned companies were allowed to conduct our domestic trade during this pandemic.
Foreign companies would be able to influence the flow of domestic goods and resources that are keeping our economy afloat. Thousands of now-secure American jobs throughout our shipbuilding and maritime workforces would be threatened, and foreign governments could gain even more undue leverage over our economy.
We also depend too heavily upon foreign shipping in global trade, with 97 percent of all U. Losing the Jones Act would mean ceding our domestic maritime economy to China and other foreign-flagged competitors, making us more vulnerable during times of crisis. The Jones Act is also an important asset to our military. Losing these assets and having to rely on foreign competitors to move our military would hurt our ability to project power during a time of war or national emergency.
These national security concerns are why the Jones Act continues to enjoy broad support in Congress. Indeed, military leaders have consistently described the Jones Act as crucial to national security. As the bipartisan leaders of the House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over maritime matters, we are committed to preserving the Jones Act. Some voices continue to call for the repeal of the law.
0コメント